Update on the Thunder Bay Harbour Clean-up

As reported in TB News Watch, a recommendation on the best method of cleaning up 400,000 cubic metres of contamination sediment in Thunder Bay Harbour is not expected until the end of 2019. There’s enough industrial sediment (mainly pulp and paper sludge), containing mercury and other contaminants, on the bottom of the north harbour to fill 150 Olympic-size swimming pools.

Thunder Bay is located at the northwest corner of Lake Superior and has a population of approximately 110,000. As the largest city in Northwestern Ontario, Thunder Bay is the region’s commercial, administrative and medical centre. It had been known in that past for it pulp and paper mills and as a key shipping port for grain.

Approximate Area of Contaminated Sediment in Thunder Bay Harbour

A new working group that’s revived efforts to manage 400,000 cubic meters of contaminated sediment in Thunder Bay’s north harbour has targeted the end of 2019 for a recommended solution.

Two federal departments, Transport Canada and Environment Canada, co-chair the group which also includes the Ontario environment ministry, the Thunder Bay Port Authority and numerous other local stakeholders.

A new steering committee has been formed to examine three options for remediation presented to the public in 2014. A previous committee formed to look at those options went dormant, necessitating the refresh.

“At this point, we want to further evaluate those [three existing] options and to look at additional options over the next 14 months,” said Roger Santiago, the head of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s sediment remediation group in November of 2018. The group primarily works on cleaning up contaminated patches in the Great Lakes.

A previous steering committee was established 10 years ago, and remediation options were developed, but momentum toward a cleanup or remediation of the contaminated site slowed after that.

That was despite the fact a 2013 risk assessment identified “unacceptable risks” to human health and to plant and animal life in the harbour area:

  • potential risk to people consuming fish (fish consumption advisory in place to mitigate the risk)
  • potential risk to people coming in direct contact with contaminated sediment
  • potential risk to kingfishers from mercury
  • potential risk to sediment-dwelling organisms from total resin acids

Impetus for a cleanup occurred earlier this year after Patty Hajdu, the MP for Thunder Bay-Superior North, raised the issue with her cabinet colleagues, the transport and environment ministers.

There’s enough industrial sediment, containing mercury and other contaminants, on the bottom of the north harbour to fill 150 Olympic-size swimming pools.

The area was classified by a consultant and by federal experts as a Class 1 polluted site using the Federal Aquatic Sites Classification System. Class 1 sites indicate high priority for action.

A Transport Canada spokesperson told Tbnewswatch the working group will spend the next 12 months on technical and environmental studies, and will consult with the general public and with Indigenous groups as it evaluates a short list of management options.

The source of the contamination is historical dumping of pulp and paper mill pollution that resulted in mercury-contaminated paper sludge up to 4 metres thick lying at the bottom of the harbour. The sediment is contaminated with mercury in concentrations that range from 2 to 11 ppm at the surface of the sediment to 21 ppm at depth and ranging in thickness from 40 to 380 centimeters and covering an area of about 22 hectares (54 acres).


Greyish, digested pulp sludge up to 4 metres thick lies across the north harbour bottom (Transport Canada)


Clean-up Options

A 2017 Consultants report stated that the preferred option was to dredge the sediment and transfer it to the Mission Bay Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at the harbour’s south end.  The dredging and transfer option was estimated to cost $40 million to $50 million, and was considered the best choice based on factors such as environmental effectiveness and budget.  The consultants also looked at other options, including capping and excavation/isolation.

The capping option would consist of placing clean material on top of the contaminated material to contain and isolate the contaminants. A geotextile (a strong fabric barrier) will support the cap material. The budget for this option was estimated at $30-$40 million.

The proposed excavation option would involve building a dam to isolate the contaminated material from the water prior to removal. Once the dam was built, the area would be dewatered so that earth-moving equipment like excavators, loaders and bulldozers can be used to remove the material. It would then be disposed of in a secure landfill. A new on-site Confined Disposal Facility has been recommended or the use of the the existing Confined Disposal Facility at Mission Bay. The excavation option is estimated to cost $80-$90 million.

No matter what is decided upon, the 2017 consultant’s report estimated it would take seven years to complete the clean up. 


Canada’s draft 2019–2022 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy: Impacts on Clean Technology and Brownfield Development

The Government of Canada recently released the Draft 2019–2022 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy for public consultation and tabled the Government’s 2018 Progress Report of the 2016–2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy.

The draft Strategy sets out the Government of Canada’s environmental sustainability priorities, establishes goals and targets, and identifies actions that 42 departments and agencies across government will take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their operations and advance sustainable development across Canada.

Of interest to professionals in the environmental sector is some of the Government’s goals with respect to the greening of government. For example, the Government is aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from federal government facilities and fleets by 40% by 2030 (with an aspiration to achieve this target by 2025) and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. It also has the goal to divert at least 75% (by weight) of all non-hazardous operational waste (including plastic waste) by 2030, and divert at least 90% (by weight) of all construction and demolition waste (striving to achieve 100% by 2030), where supported by local infrastructure. The administrative fleet will be comprised of at least 80% zero-emission vehicles by 2030 according to the draft report.

With respect to real property, the proposed actions of the Canadian federal government include the following: (1) All new buildings and major building retrofits will prioritize low-carbon investments based on integrated design principles, and life-cycle and total cost-of-ownership assessments which incorporate shadow carbon pricing; (2) Minimize embodied carbon and the use of harmful materials in construction and renovation; and (3) Departments will adopt and deploy clean technologies and implement procedures to manage building operations and take advantage of programs to improve the environmental performance of their buildings.

For professionals involved in clean technology, the draft report calls for the implement of the Government’s pledge to double federal government investments in clean energy research, development and demonstration from 2015 levels of $387 million to $775 million by 2020.

The 2018 Progress Report shows how the Government of Canada is implementing the 2016–2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, demonstrating that it is on track to meeting many of the commitments laid out in the Strategy. This includes highlighting the leadership role Canada has taken in working toward zero plastic waste and implementing measures to conserve marine areas, as well as actions on climate change.

With respect to clean technology, clean energy, and clean growth, the progress report touts the fact that through three consecutive federal budgets, the Government of Canada has made substantial investments in initiatives to support clean technology, clean energy and clean growth. These commitments include: (1) $2.3 billion in 2017 for clean technology and clean energy research, development, demonstration, adoption, commercialization and use; (2) $1.26 billion in Budget 2017 for the Strategic Innovation Fund; and (3) $4 billion in 2018 in Canada’s research and science infrastructure, much of which helps drive innovation towards a clean growth economy.

The draft Strategy updates the 2016–2019 Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, largely maintaining its aspirational goals while adding targets that reflect new initiatives, updating milestones with new priorities, and strengthening links to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In all, 29 medium-term targets support the draft Strategy’s goals, along with 60 short-term milestones and clear action plans.

Among other results, the 2018 Progress Report shows that

  • from 2016 to 2017, greenhouse gas emissions from federal government operations were 28 per cent lower than in 2005 to 2006—more than halfway to the target to reduce emissions from federal buildings and fleets by 40 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030;
  • as of December 2017, close to 8 per cent of Canada’s coastal and marine areas were conserved; and
  • from 2017 to 2018, visits to national parks and marine conservation areas increased by 34 per cent above the 2010 to 2011 baseline levels.

Canadians have the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Strategy until early Spring 2019. For further information: Caroline Thériault, Press Secretary, Office of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, 613-462-5473.

Ontario Government’s Plans on the Environment: Impact on Brownfield Development

The Ontario Government released a Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan in late 2018 in partially in response to criticism that it had no plan for addressing climate change after it cancelled the greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade program of the previous government. The plan includes several proposals that should be on interest to persons involved in brownfield development.

The Ontario government 52-page document (entitled (“Preserving and Protecting or Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan”) commits to protecting air, lakes and rivers; addressing climate change; reducing litter and waste; and conserving land and greenspace. Many of the measures establish a direction but the details will have to be further developed.

With respect to contaminated sites and brownfields, the document talks about the “polluter pay”, and engaging environment business and entrepreneurs. However, it is lacking in details.

Generating GHG from Brownfield Projects

The Ontario government’s proposed replaced to the scraped GHG trading regulation is the Creating the Ontario Carbon Fund. While details are to be worked out, the plan proposes to use $400M of government funding with the aim of leveraging additional private funds on a 4:1 basis to support “investment in clean technologies that are commercially viable.” The fund will also support a “reverse auction” model whereby emitters will “bid” for funding to support their GHG reduction projects.

There is a possibility that developers involved in brownfield redevelopment could be eligible for government funding depending on if clean technologies are employed in the clean-up and GHG reductions are realized versus the traditional dig-and-dump approach to site clean-up.

2010 Photo of the former Kitchener Frame Building (Photo Credit: Philip Walker/Record staff)

Streamlined environmental approvals

The Made-in-Ontario Plan notes that environmental approvals should be prioritized for businesses that want to implement low GHG technology or approaches. This is the latest promise from the Ontario government to speed up the approval process.

Seasoned veterans in the environmental sector remember similar promises made the government on fast-tracked approvals. There are still those who remember the Environmental Leaders Program in which speedy approval was promised to companies that committed to above-compliance environmental activities and targets.

With respect to this latest promise on speedy approvals, the document is silent on if “speed” will be applied to the Environment Ministry review of site specific risk assessments (SSRA’s) that are submitted to the Ontario Environment Ministry for approval instead of following the generic clean-up standards.

Measures to promote healthy, clean soils

The Made-in-Ontario Plan plan commits to “revise the brownfield regulation and record of site condition guide” as part of a basket of measures to promote clean soils. Again, the document is lacking in details.

The previous Ontario government had proposed reasonable changes to the Record of Site Condition Regulations (O. Reg. 153/04). One important aspect of the proposed change is related to road-salt impacts on a property. As the regulations currently stands, road salt-related impacts can only be exempted from clean-up if it can be proven they are related to the application of de-icing salts on a public highway. Under the proposed changes to the regulations, the exemption will include road salt applied to a property ‘for the purpose of traffic and pedestrian safety under conditions of snow/ice’. This one change, if implemented, would save thousands of dollars in clean-up costs at many sites undergoing redevelopment in Ontario.

The previous Ontario government had also proposed a much-need excess soil regulation. There has been extensive consultation on the proposed regulation over a five-year period. If implemented, the regulation would address the gaps surrounding the ability for enforcement on mismanagement of excess soils in Ontario. It would also open up the opportunity for beneficial reuse of excess soil.

Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2019: Hazardous Materials

The ACTA Group of Bergeson & Campbell PC recently wrote an article in the National Law Review (NLR) forecasting the U.S. federal and international chemical regulatory policy related to hazardous materials for the coming year. The two major areas covered are hazardous materials transportation and trade.

Under hazardous materials transportation, the NLR article predicts that the
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) will face the challenge of a growing burden on it as the scope and complexity of its mission grows. The article predicts this pressure will require the PHMSA to fundamentally rethink how it will use data, information, and technology to achieve its safety goals.

The article states that new information and research will drive much of what PHMSA undertakes in 2019. Advances in technology, enhanced commerce, and a rapidly evolving global trade in hazardous materials must be matched by PHMSA if it is to satisfy its mandates. At this point, PHMSA appears to recognize these new challenges and is poised to maintain its highly honed edge on hazardous materials transportation.

Specific actions that PHMSA will undertake in 2019 include the following:

  • Legislative requirements in the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, especially as it applies to high hazard flammable trains – PHMSA is slated to promulgate a final rule pursuant to the FAST Act that will expand the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans based on thresholds of liquid petroleum that apply to an entire train ;
  • Transportation of lithium batteries by air;
  • Conversion of special permits;
  • International standards harmonization; and
  • Identifying research gaps and determining priorities.

The NLR article states that PHMSA can be expected to continue to promulgate rules in compliance with its statutory mandates but it also recognizes the need to shore up gaps and to keep pace with an accelerating array of products that are transported in commerce. New information and research will drive much of what PHMSA undertakes in 2019. Advances in technology, enhanced commerce, and a rapidly evolving global trade in hazardous materials must be matched by PHMSA if it is to satisfy its mandates.

With respect to U.S. trade with other countries, the NRL article discusses the five pillars of U.S. trade policy:

  1. Trade Policy that Supports National Security Policy;
  2. Strengthening the American Economy;
  3. Negotiating Trade Deals that Work for All Americans;
  4. Enforcing and Defending U.S. Trade Laws; and
  5. Strengthening the Multilateral Trading System.

Specific trade actions are discussed in the NRL article that apply hazardous materials including the new agreement that replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement and the new focus of the U.S. on bi-lateral trade agreements.

What is the best HazMat training method to keep first responders safe

by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

While regulations exist to guide HazMat training requirements for first  responders, the reality is that many personnel still don’t consider themselves to be adequately skilled in the use of their equipment.

Sometimes it’s because there simply isn’t enough time to carry out regular and structured training programmes. Sometimes this lack of preparedness comes as the result of budget cuts where training is one of the first things to go.

So says, independent CBRN consultant and subject matter expert, Debra Robinson in a white paper she has written which explores the subject of keeping first responders safe.

As Debra explains, it’s not enough for a department to simply purchase a full array of safety and monitoring equipment.

“Responders need to be thoroughly knowledgeable about the capabilities, limitations and applications and be proficient in the use of each piece of equipment, and that takes a great deal of training,” she says.

It would seem too that smaller fire departments are often the ones losing out, with many volunteers not always being crystal clear on what their training requirements even entail. 

“Large city or larger communities with paid fire departments are far better off than the smaller departments. Some 70-80% of fire departments across the United States are manned by volunteers and many struggle to find volunteers to provide the services, let alone complete the requisite training,” she says.

For those departments that do have training coordinators and solid programs in place,there is still the challenge of trying to deliver equipment training that provides the most realistic learning experience possible whilst also guaranteeing personnel safety.

As Debra points out,the equipment that is used to detect, identify and measure hazardous materials can often involve significant risk, even in the presumed safety of a training environment.

Some trainers may still defer to more traditional HazMat training methods – such as the use of powerful simulants that closely mimic the properties of chemical materials. But many of these simulants can be hazardous in their own right,even in the smallest and most controlled of quantities.

In recent years, Debra explains, there’s been more of a move towards the use of training simulators which rely on specific frequencies and technologies to replicate the effects of actual, chemical, radiological and biological materials.

Says Debra: “The obvious benefit is the simulators greatly reduce the risks associated with the use of live agents. Used properly, they can be a valuable training tool and can provide for a much more realistic training environment.”

Simulators have developed a strong reputation for their abilities to facilitate hands-on training that can simply not be achieved with live agent training methods. Live agents by their nature carry an extreme level of inherent risk – something that is eliminated through the use of simulator equipment.

As Debra highlights, having the opportunity for some “serious hands-on time with the equipment” is another major plus for trainees, where repetition is the key to successful learning.

And there are also tangible benefits to be gained for a department’s bottom-line, she says, with the return on investment (ROI) being clearly evident in fewer operator errors,as well as “reduced damage to detectors, avoidance of simulant and source related administration etc. and perhaps even lower insurance premiums.”

As Debra argues, it can be easy for political or government leaders to dismiss the need for investment in CBRNe and HazMat training – and particularly when budgets are tight. Bu the risk to communities from chemical, biological or radiological threat is very real. While this may come in the form of terrorist threats, there is also the much greater risk of hazardous materials that exist in our communities’industrial plants, hospitals and businesses.

As Debra concludes:”Ultimately, the decision-point and justification is quite simple. Are you willing to accept the risks associated with under-qualified personnel and insufficient training and capabilities, or should you consider moving toward ensuring you have sufficiently trained, equipped and qualified personnel to respond to the hazards that exist in the community?”

Debra Robinson is founder of 2o8 Consulting & Solutions, based in Lincoln, Nebraska. She provides consulting and SME services in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) and Emergency Management preparedness across a diverse range of platforms and industries.

This article was first published in Argon Electronics website.

About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a world leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators.

Environmental Convictions & Contaminated Property: Ontario Summary for 2018

The Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MOECP) publishes publishes an annual report on environmental penalties issued in the previous calendar year for certain land or water violations for companies subject to the Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) Regulations.  Companies subject to the MISA Regulations belong to one of the nine industrial sectors found in the Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits (EMEL) regulations.  The summary report for 2017 was published in the Spring of 2018.

Under the MISA Regulations, environmental penalties can range from $1,000 per day for less serious violations such as failure to submit a quarterly report under the MISA Regulations  to $100,000 per day for the most serious violations, including a spill with a significant impact.

For serious offences under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act and Ontario Water Resources Act, the maximum and minimum corporate fines for each day on which the offence occurs is as follows:

  1. not less than $25,000 and not more than $6,000,000 on a first conviction;
  2. not less than $50,000 and not more than $10,000,000 on a second conviction; and
  3. not less than $100,000 and not more than $10,000,000 on each subsequent conviction.

In the past, Ontario Environment Ministry would publish a more comprehensive environmental enforcement report that covered all penalties, fines and convictions.

In a 2011 blog, Diane Saxe, Ontario’s former Environmental Commissioner and former partner at Siskinds Law Firm, wrote that  a typical year, the Ontario Environment launches about 150 to 175 prosecutions. About 75% of them are resolved by guilty pleas; about 5% are acquitted at trial; about 10% are convicted of something at trial; about 10% are withdrawn.

As the end of the calendar year approaches, the staff at Hazmat Management Magazine thought it would be useful to review some of the more significant environmental convictions related to contaminated property.  That summary can be found below.

Environmental Consultant and an Individual fined $50,000 for False RSC Incidents

In the Spring, an Ontario-based consulting firm that provides environmental, geotechnical, and hydrogeological consulting services was convicted when an employee falsified  Environment Ministry Letters of Acknowledgement to Records of Site Conditions (RSCs) for two properties.

An RSC is a statement on the environmental condition of a property and is typically a requirement by a municipality if a contaminated property is remediated and a redevelopment is proposed that involves a more sensitive land use (i.e., from industrial to residential).  The environmental consultant that performed the environmental site investigation at the site (a Phase I ESA and possibly a Phase II ESA) submits an RSC to the Environment Ministry.  The Environment Ministry issues an acknowledgement of the RSC.

The offences occurred in the Spring of 2014 and winter of 2015.  When the Consulting firm realized one of its employees had issued falsified documents related to the RSCs it immediately informed the affected owners of the related properties.  In the Fall of 2015, an owner/developer of another construction project in the Greater Toronto Area notified the ministry of concerns relating to their RSC submissions of which the consulting firm in question was involved.  At that time, the Environment Ministry commenced an audit and investigations.

The consulting firm was found guilty of one violation under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), was fined $35,000 plus a Victim Fine Surcharge (VFS) of $8,750, and was given 30 days to pay. On the same date, former employee was found guilty of two violations under the EPA, was fined $15,000 plus a VFS of $3,750, and was given 18 months to pay.

Muskoka Cottage Owner fined $30,000 for Discharging Fuel Oil into Water Well

In the winter, a Muskoka homeowner was convicted for discharging fuel and other petroleum hydrocarbon into a water well which can impair the quality of the water. He was fined $30,000 plus a victim surcharge with 6 months to pay .

The conviction stems from an incident that occurred in the spring of 2016.  On May 16, 2016, the homeowner of a cottage on Lake of Bays poured heating fuel oil down a neighbor’s well, damaging the quality of the water in the well. The incident was referred to the Environment Ministry’s investigations and Enforcement branch, resulted in charges and one conviction through a guilty plea.

Residential Property Owner fined $3,000 for Falsely Claiming Property was Remediated

In the winter, a homeowner in Guelph was convicted of failing to apply with two provincial officers orders issued under the environmental protection act (EPA) . The homeowner was fined $3,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $750 and was given 15 days to pay the fine .

The violation occurred in 2013 when the homeowner bought a residential property in Guelph , which earlier had been contaminated with oil fuel from a historic spill at the property . In the December of 2014, the homeowner put the residence up for sale.  The Environment Ministry subsequently received a complaint that the house was up for sale but had not been adequately remediated.

During the course of its investigations, the Environment Ministry found the previous owner had claimed the property had been remediated but discovered that no remediation had been conducted.  An Order was issued by the Environment Ministry for all documentation related to any remediation at the property to be submitted.  Despite providing an extension on a submission date, the not information was provided to the Environment Ministry.

The incident was referred to the ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch, resulting in charges and the conviction against the property owner.

Fine of $30,000 for Discharging Contaminants and Illegal Operation of Waste Disposal Site

In the winter, a business located in the County of Essex and its owner was convicted of three offences under the Environmental Protection Act( EPA) and was also fined $30,000 for discharging dust that cause and was likely to cause an adverse effect, and being deposited at a property that is not allowed nor an approved waste disposal site.

A business owner in Essex County accepted 189 truckloads of  construction waste in 2014 despite the fact that property was not approved as a waste disposal site.

In 2015, the business owner was operating a farm tractor to turn soil at the site. The operation resulted in the release of plumes of dust which adversely affected nearby residents and their properties . The incident was referred to the Environment Ministry’s Investigations Branch.

 

Kitchener, Ontario’s Largest Brownfield Redevelopment

Kitchener, Ontario’s biggest abandoned industrial site is well on its way into being redeveloped into a 50,000-square-foot facility for a tool and die company and a 3,150-square-metre medical office building.

The 78-acres industrial site is located on the southeast corner of Bleams Road and Homer Watson Boulevard in Kitchener, approximately 100 km west of Toronto.  It was developed with a 1.2 million square foot manufacturing facility that was constructed in several phases beginning in 1967.  The facility had been used by Budd Canada to manufacture auto parts, ThyssenKrupp Budd Canada, and eventually by Kitchener Frame.  The land has sat idle since 2009.

2010 Photo of fhe former Kitchener Frame Building (Photo Credit: Philip Walker/Record staff

In 2010, a group of investors purchased the property with the vision of redeveloping it.  It has taken eight years for the redevelopment to reach its current state – a series of approvals from various levels of government and a plan to start construction in early 2019.

The site is still waiting approval of the Record of Site Condition (RSC) from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MOECP). It was filed in January of 2018.  An RSC is typically required by on Ontario Municipality if a property is being redevelopment for a more sensitive land use (i.e., from industrial to commercial or residential).  It is filed by an environmental consultant following the clean-up of a property.  It summarizes the environmental condition of a property based on the completion of environmental site assessments (i.e., Phase I & II ESAs).

Site Clean-up

Demolition work and subsequent site cleanup got underway in November 2011. The environmental remediation cost an estimated $8.5 million.

A soil remediation program was conducted at the property between April and June 2016 in an attempt to reduce the
concentrations of the contaminants of concern s in soil identified at the property. The remediation activity at the site included the excavation of approximately 9,360 cubic metres (5,200 tonnes) of contaminated soil for disposal at a licensed non-hazardous waste landfill.  No sediment or groundwater was remediated or removed for the purpose of remediation.

The clean-up of the site included the preparation of a Streamlined Tier 3 Risk Assessment Report.   A risk assessment provides an approach for developing property specific standards (PSS) under Ontario Regulation 153/04 (Records of Site Condition (RSC) – Part XV.1 of the Act), made under the Environmental Protection Act (the Regulation). A Tier 3 Risk Assessment goes beyond the generic approach of a Tier 2 risk assessment and involves a longer and more detailed review by the MOECP. According to the filed RSC, the MOECP has approved of the Streamlined Tier 3 Risk Assessment.

As reported in the Kitchener Post, a total of $7,787,000 in direct remediation costs are eligible to be reimbursed by the city and region under a joint tax increment grant application. The total estimated post redevelopment assessment value is estimated at more than $111 million.

Redevelopment

In an interview with the Daily Commercial News, Janinen Oosterveld, manager of site development and customer service in Kitchener-Waterloo’s planning division stated: “Approvals to finalize the subdivision of the lands into development parcels is currently underway.”

As of mid-October, the city had received site plan applications for two developments — a 50,000-square-foot facility for a tool and die company and a 3,150-square-metre medical office building.

Plans for the redevelopment envisage nine industrial parcels, totaling approximately 39 acres.

Future redevelopment of the former industrial property on Homer Watson Boulevard, Kitchener, Ontario (Photo Credit: Bill Jackson/Metroland)

 

CHAR Announces Successful Commissioning of Biocarbon Facility

Andrew White, CEO of CHAR Technologies Ltd.

CHAR Technologies Ltd. (“CHAR”) (YES – TSXV) recently announced that it has successfully commissioned its biocarbon production facility.  CHAR creates two types of biocarbon, an activated charcoal “SulfaCHAR” and a solid biofuel (bio-coal) “CleanFyre.”  At full capacity, the facility will be capable of producing up to 5 tonnes per day of biocarbon.

“Successful commissioning is a very significant milestone for CHAR,” said Andrew White, CEO of CHAR. “We are now able to produce commercial quantities of SulfaCHAR, as well as enough CleanFyre to test as part of our project with ArcelorMittal Dofasco and Walker Environmental.”

The completion of commissioning is the next milestone in CHAR’s Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) project.  Upon acceptance of the milestone report by SDTC, the next progress payment can be processed.

CleanFyre is a carbon neutral solid biofuel, and through its implementation will allow users to significantly reduce their GHG emissions.  SulfaCHAR is a zero-waste activated charcoal, with application in the desulfurization of renewable natural gas.  Both are made from low-value materials, including anaerobic digestate and wood-based by-products.

About CHAR

CHAR Technologies Ltd. is a cleantech development and services company, specializing in biocarbon development (activated charcoal ‘SulfaCHAR’ and solid biofuel ‘CleanFyre’) and custom equipment for industrial air and water treatment, and providing services in environmental management, site investigation and remediation, engineering, and resource efficiency.

CHAR Pyrolysis Unit, pre-installation and commissioning (Photo Credit: CHAR)

Gaps on the movement of dangerous goods in Northern Canada

As reported by the The Canadian Press, the Canadian federal government says it doesn’t know enough about how, when, and where dangerous goods move through the Canadian North, highlighting the potential risks of a major spill or other disaster.

As a result, the possible effects on public safety and the environment are also unclear, Transport Canada acknowledges.

The department is commissioning a study to help fill in the knowledge gaps and improve readiness when it comes to movement of goods ranging from explosives and flammable liquids to infectious substances and radioactive materials.

The effort will focus on regions north of the 55th parallel as well as on more southerly, but isolated, areas in eastern Manitoba and northern Ontario, says a newly issued call for bids to carry out the study.

The overall goal is to fully identify the hazardous substances transported throughout these areas and the major hubs that link to relevant airports, marine ports, ice roads, railroads, mines, refining sites, manufacturing plants and warehouses.

The information will help Transport Canada pinpoint potential risks and make decisions concerning safety regulations and compliance, the tender notice says.

A stark reminder of the difficulty of moving goods in northern Canada came when the only rail line to Churchill, Man., was flooded and it became impossible to deliver freight overland until an ice road was built.

There are also virtually no freight rail lines north of the 60th parallel, except for rail access to Hay River in the Northwest Territories, the notice says. Considering the seasonal nature of ice roads and ports, there are limited routes for movement of dangerous goods in or out of northern Canada and other remote areas, it adds.

The tenuous nature of northern transportation systems mean there are “gaps in information” about the kinds of dangerous goods transported, the volume of shipments and the sort of emergency response systems available.

“We continuously examine ways to make transportation in Canada safer for all and this assessment is part of our effort to ensure even greater knowledge regarding the handling of goods in the North,” said Transport Canada spokeswoman Annie Joannette.

She declined to provide additional information given the competitive tender process underway.

The most valuable element of the exercise could be the educational process of better informing people about the risks of transporting dangerous substances, said Rob Huebert, a northern studies expert at the University of Calgary.

“It’s always about the follow-through,” he said. “Because you can have all these exercises through the ying-yang, but if you’re not setting up the system properly and then maintaining the system, what’s the point of having it?”

Until now, Canada’s emergency preparedness efforts have largely been focused on maritime response and less on land-based accidents, he said.

“I think a lot of people always forget that the North is an area that is just so different from every place else.”

North American Rail Network (Transportation Safety Board of Canada)

competition to destroy chemical weapons launched by UK and US

The United Kingdom Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA), part of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and UK Ministry of Defence (MOD), has launched the ‘Don’t Blow It!’ competition, the first joint UK-US industry competition run by DASA and funded by the MOD and US Department of Defense (US DOD).

Competitors have been asked to identify innovative concepts or adapt current technologies to access, disable and destroy chemical and biological devices. This includes chemical and biological munitions, improvised explosive devices containing lethal agents or containers of bulk quantities of chemical or biological agents discovered on the battlefield or in other austere and resource-limited environments.

Defence Minister Stuart Andrew said:

Horrific incidents stretching from Salisbury to Syria this year have shown us that chemical weapons are sadly still very much a reality – but a reality that we are determined to deal with. Destroying these deadly weapons is a complicated process and not doing it properly could mean devastating collateral damage. These are challenges that we share with our allies like the US. Competitions like this help us to tackle them head on with some of the best and brightest minds across both our countries.

Although it is over 100 years since the first large-scale use of chemical weapons, the threat from both chemical and biological weapons persists. This has been demonstrated by the recent rise in the use of such deadly weapons on the battlefield and in targeted attacks.

Much progress has been made to destroy state-declared global stockpiles of chemical weapons through very successful large scale destruction programmes, utilising techniques such as incineration, explosive destruction or neutralisation. However, to meet emerging and future challenges, such as the destruction of smaller caches produced by terrorists in resource-limited or hostile environments such as Iraq or Syria, there needs to be a focus on developing more robust elimination capabilities that are less labour intensive.

The competition has an initial £500,000 to fund multiple proof-of-concept proposals at low Technology Readiness Levels. Additional funding of £1.5 million is anticipated to be available for future phases.

The competition is seeking innovative ideas from non-traditional supply sectors and is looking for ‘outside-the-box’ proposals that will:

  • enable rapid and flexible destruction
  • reduce logistical support requirements
  • maximise ease of operation and transportability
  • address a greater breadth of threats

MOD Chief Scientific Advisor, Dr Simon Cholerton said:

As the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the Novichok attack in Salisbury demonstrate, the risk from chemical weapons still remains and the issue of safely eliminating them from an austere tactical environment remains an enduring technical challenge. I am delighted therefore that we are working with our closest ally to launch a new industry competition to help us develop effective and safe elimination capabilities. Our collaboration is the first time we have launched a truly joint UK-US competition through the UK Ministry of Defence’s Defence and Security Accelerator, which is charged with enabling us to innovate by rapidly transforming the ideas of today into the capabilities of tomorrow.

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, US DOD, The Hon. Guy Roberts said:

The expanding proliferation of chemical weapons use, from state and non-state actors, portends the greatest threat of their use on the battlefield since World War I. My responsibility is to ensure our forces are protected from, and can fight through, any such threats. To that end, we must continually innovate our capabilities, and it is especially important to do so in collaboration with those who fight alongside us. This competition does just that. It allows us to jointly invest in research and development with our closest ally as well as seek innovative ideas from a broader set of brilliant minds who I am confident will lead us to creative solutions.

The competition was launched at an event in London on the afternoon of 26 September 2018. Potential suppliers were provided with context on the challenge by both UK and US speakers, as well as information on how to apply to the competition by DASA.

The submission deadline for proposals is 5 pm GMT (midday EST) on 7 November 2018.

Follow this link for more information on the competition

or contact DASA directly on accelerator@dstl.gov.uk